As Romney has re-emerged with his book tour, we have seen some efforts to put him in the “Mormon box,” but in general things have been much, much quieter than last time around. No major pieces on Romney’s “evangelical problem,” none of that. But last Friday Bill Maher decided to turn the heat to levels we have not seen since Weisberg and “the founding whoppers of Mormonism” slam. In discussing the airplane incident, Maher said:

“I just couldn’t help but think maybe this has something to do with the fact that the Mormons traditionally have not had a great relation with the black people.”

So, now by religious implication, Romney is a racist. There are no words to describe this but “despicable.” The Mormon church has worked very hard to undo the racial injustices that were a part of its history, as frankly have all churches. My own Presbyterian church actually went through a northern/southern split (in later years the split was more about the role of women in the church, but its roots were in the Civil War) and did not manage to pull itself back together again until the 1980′s – 10 years after the Mormons fixed their racial issues.

These comments by Maher are an outrage. Sadly there is nothing new in Maher being outrageous, particularly about Mormons, but this one just cuts too close. This is a not a stereotype – this is an implied accusation that Mitt Romney, and all Mormons, are racists. Such cannot and should not be suffered. The Newsbusters piece linked show the paucity of the evidence that Maher brings to bear, which is fine, but that is not the issue. This is simply not a charge to be leveled without DIRECT evidence concerning the individual.

But I have already given this more attention than it deserves because no one really listens to Maher anymore, at least no one serious. That he has a TV show, even one that only like 6 people watch. is criminal but in this day and age we have more television distribution capability than we have decent programming so fools are going to get outlets. That’s what Bill Maher is – a fool.

And while we are discussing outrages – you remember Joe Carter. Joe is a leading Evangelical blogger, now serving as blog editor at First Things. You’ll also remember that Joe seconded, loudly and influentially, Joel Belz’ utterly bigoted “Mormons lie” piece last cycle. Well, writing last week about the religious affiliation of recent Supreme Court nominees (it has been tilting very Catholic of late) Joe said this:

I think I can speak for many of my fellow conservative evangelicals, however, in saying that even if the quota wasn’t going to go to another mainline Protestant WASP, we wouldn’t have much interest in a religious affirmative action program. Personally, I’d rather have someone on the bench like Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts who shares my judicial philosophy than have a quota for someone merely because they can share a pew with me on Sunday morning.

[Emphasis added.] Gee Joe – when it comes to Catholics you are willing to judge them by their stances on issues, but when it comes to Mormons you are not? When you examine Carter’s body of work here you discover nothing more than simple, base discrimination, and that is outrageous. For one group he will judge the individual, but another group is beyond such evaluation and simply discarded.

Who knows, maybe Carter’s comments here are evidence that he is learning, even changing his mind, but he needs to write about that if such is the case. UPDATE LATER THE DAY OF PUBLICATION: Joe Carter has, as of this date, in the post in question, retracted his endorsement of the Belz’ piece – indicating that he has indeed changed his mind about the role of Romney’s religion. Based on that I will withdraw my accusation of “base discrimination” made above. Though Carter’s distaste for Romney remains evident, that such not be based on a religious charge is all we ask in this blog. Back to the original post.

And speaking of Carter’s writings, another piece he did at the “First Thoughts” blog illustrates part of the problem when many evangelicals approach politics. He works very hard, in the tall grass, to distinguish Rousseau’s “civil religion” from Ben Franklin’s “public religion.” There are a couple of comments to be made here. In citing “public religion,” Carter relies on Jon Meacham. I know for a fact that Mecham’s book was one of the major sources Romney used in preparing his “Faith in America” speech – talk about sharing public philosophy! Secondly, the distinction Carter is making here, while intellectually valid, is so far past the average voter that it can only serve to confuse matters. In the modern era, when discussing retail level politics, messaging matters almost as much as message.

When it comes to religion and politics and the general public our messaging has to make our message accessible – this sort of stuff is simply off-putting, it practically reeks of “you’re not smart enough to participate in this discussion.” We need to be searching for language that unites conservatives of faith, not makes distinctions no one wants to bother with. Recent studies show:

. . . that young adults hold their religious beliefs in abstract, “mentally checked off and filed away.” Doctrine does not determine their lives. Religion is about being good and living a good life, not believing the right things.

Now, the article I just cited goes on to argue the need for doctrine, but that is a religious argument and we are talking politics here. Politics are about meeting people where they are in order to get stuff done that needs to be done. If this is where people are, then when it comes to political activism, that’s where we need to go.

Moving on . . .

That’s a lot of discussion and there is still a lot of news, so let’s go bullet form.

Glenn Beck Is Simply No Help . . .

Because people think “all Mormons are alike,” Glenn Beck matters, but he sure has moved into silly land. And by the way, it is no more Beck’s business to tell Catholics how to behave than it is my business to tell Mormons what to do. Here’s the coverage:

Religion In The News . . .

Deep Thoughts . . .

These are all pieces worthy of a lot of discussion, but Maher’s outrage had to consume that, so here they are for your edification and thought. Feel free to discuss in the comments – or use the discussion center at our Facebook page.

Lowell adds . . .

No one pays much attention to Bill Maher. That’s why he says outrageous things – to get noticed. Enough said about him.

As for former Huckabee supporter, outspoken Romney detractor and foe of Mormonism generally Joe Carter, his much-labored-over First Thoughts piece is summarized well in one of the comments:

[T]here is too much confusion, in my opinion, in your essay’s articulations of “civil religion” for one even to agree or disagree with it.

And Glenn Beck. Oh, dear, Glenn Beck. Most Mormons who are not hard-core right-wingers will tell you they wince often when they hear what he has to say (and only the hard-core watch him). Still, it was interesting to see how some of the commenters to Joe Carter’s piece on Beck took the opportunity to bash Beck’s Mormonism, although his show is political. I guess those are the kinds of reader Carter attracts. That’s not the high-minded First Things crowd I have known.

As for the ludicrous notion that the tea partiers scare Evangelicals (doesn’t the MSM love a rift among conservatives?), I liked this quote from Grover Norquist in the L.A. Times:

“The reason why social conservatives and economic conservatives can play well together … is the guy who wants to go to church all day just wants to be left alone. So does the guy who wants to play with his gun all day, and the guy who wants to make money all day,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “They don’t agree on how to spend their time, but they do agree on their central issue: They want to be left alone.”

Well, yes. Common ground is common ground. I wish more conservative leaders would talk about this.

And yes, Romney has to come up with a convincing reponse to the claim that RomneyCare and ObamaCare are the same thing. They are not, but the charge is sticking. Mitt needs a short, non-wonkish answer to the charge. If you watch the video just below all the way through, you will see that he is getting closer, but he’s not there. The right 38 words at the beginning of his answer would have done the trick:

In Massachusetts we imposed a state plan, not a federal one. Health care should not be reformed at the federal level. Besides, our plan was based on conservative free-market principles, and you don’t find any of those in ObamaCare.

Somewhat ironically, Romney’s superb intellect is causing him problems. As a health care lawyer I know exactly what he is saying, but most people don’t spend every day in the tall grass the way I do. Romney needs to break this stuff down a little more for people.

Joe is a leading Evangelical blogger, now serving as blog editor at First Things. You’ll also remember that Joe seconded, loudly and influentially, Joel Belz’ utterly bigoted “Mormons lie” piece last cycle.

I had forgotten that I had commented favorably on Belz’s article. (I also forgot where you proved that Belz was wrong about his claims.) But since you want to bring it up let me say that I don’t care one whit about Romney’s Mormonism. He may be sincere about his faith. If so, it would be a change of pace for a man who seems to lack any core conviction other than a desire to get elected.

I am shocked and deeply disappointed by you, John. I thought we were friends but apparently you put politics above that. We’ve discussed this issue long enough that you know that I don’t think Romney is a liar because he’s a Mormon but that he’s a liar because he continually lies (even an unabashed apologist like you has to admit that).

By the way, when is Article 6 going to get to the bottom of the Mormon push-polling that occurred in New Hampshire in December 2007. The NH AJ was supposed to release the results of the investigations back in December of that year but . . . something happened. Why aren’t you outraged that such a cover-up occurred? When will Article 6 follow-up on this issue?

(I’m only asking rhetorically, of course. You proved a long time ago that you no longer care about the truth only about slandering anyone who gets in the way of electing Romney.)

I am pleased to hear you say that you do not care about Romney’s faith. I’ll take that at face value – though I think it would be appropriate that if such is the case you write a retraction of your endorsement of the Belz’ piece. You’re entitled to your opinion with regards to Romney himself – on that we disagree.

We have followed the push-polling in New Hampshire closely and there are simply no facts at this point to be found, or we would publish them. Lot of conjecture to be made out of that incident which all depends on how one wants to spin it, but absent facts that’s all it is – spin.

I also do not accept your slander charge – you published what you published.

***I am pleased to hear you say that you do not care about Romney’s faith. I’ll take that at face value – though I think it would be appropriate that if such is the case you write a retraction of your endorsement of the Belz’ piece.***

I will add just such a retraction to that old post.

***You’re entitled to your opinion with regards to Romney himself – on that we disagree.***

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Romney is a habitual liar—that’s not an opinion, its a fact. To take just one egregious, but trivial example, he lied when he said, “”My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.” I could literally spend half the day documenting the times he’s lied.

That is why the man will never be president. His record of saying anything at all that he thinks will get him elected is an albatross around his neck.

***We have followed the push-polling in New Hampshire closely and there are simply no facts at this point to be found, or we would publish them. Lot of conjecture to be made out of that incident which all depends on how one wants to spin it, but absent facts that’s all it is – spin.***

Don’t you think it is a bit odd that two years later that the issue has not been settled? Why hasn’t someone from this blog contacted the NH AG to get an update—and find out what is taking so long. After all, this was a clear-cut issue of someone trying to use religion to change the outcome of the election. Don’t you want to get to the bottom of it? What if it was Huckabee? Wouldn’t it be worthwhile to use this against him know before the campaign even starts?

I think we all know why you don’t want to push the issue. But let me ask you directly: What if the push-poll was authorized by the Romney campaign? Will *that* change your opinion of the man?

You said:

***Gee Joe – when it comes to Catholics you are willing to judge them by their stances on issues, but when it comes to Mormons you are not? When you examine Carter’s body of work here you discover nothing more than simple, base discrimination, and that is outrageous. ***

This is slanderous, John, and a you know it. The fact that you would slander a fellow Christians—and a friends (former friend?) to defend a politician that you don’t even know is troubling. I literally don’t understand your reasoning. Even when I worked for a politician—Huckabee, of course—I refused to damage my integrity by defending him against claims that I knew were true. And I was getting paid to do it. Romney isn’t even paying you (or is he?) so I truly can’t understand how you’d slander friends in order to defend the liar.

I have confirmed your retraction. I will amend this post and acknowledge your change in viewpoint.

The NH AG does not comment publicly on open investigations and your insistence that we are supposed to come up with answers in such a vacuum of information is informative. The last public information indicated a pro-Huckabee 527 as being behind the push polls and Huckabee quickly backed away from the group. At that point the AG became involved an all comment on the incident and investigation ceased.

We have refused to try and spin the incident one way or the other and await facts. Your push for answers where none exist strikes me as pure spin, which it is your prerogative to do, but which I do not wish to engage in.

I do know Mitt Romney personally, though not well and certainly not to the extent you know Huckabee since, no I am not nor have I ever been paid staff for Mitt Romney.

I have yet to meet the politician of any stripe, or any other person for that matter, that does not suffer from misrememberances, exaggerations and even misstatements about matters in their lives such as events from their youth -its part of the human condition. They are often the fodder of political “gotcha” That is how the game is played.

***The NH AG does not comment publicly on open investigations and your insistence that we are supposed to come up with answers in such a vacuum of information is informative.***

Why is the investigation still open after two years? How hard is it to get the name of the person or group that commissioned the poll? Have you ever asked who is trying to stop the answers from coming out? Do you even care?

***The last public information indicated a pro-Huckabee 527 as being behind the push polls and Huckabee quickly backed away from the group. At that point the AG became involved an all comment on the incident and investigation ceased.***

You seem woefully uninformed on this issue. The AG became involved but all comment did not cease. The AG himself identified that it was Western Wats, of Orem, Utah, that made the calls, and the another firm, Moore Information, which hired them. Then some high-priced lawyer got involved and prevented any further results of the investigation from being made public.

I notice you didn’t answer, so let me ask again: If it was found that the Romney campaign was behind the calls, woudl that change your opinion of him?

***Your push for answers where none exist strikes me as pure spin, which it is your prerogative to do, but which I do not wish to engage in.***

Of course you don’t. When it looked like Huckabee or McCain might be behind it, you were quite interested in “spinning” the issue. But then when the signs started to point to Romney, things suddenly changed.

Trust me, this story isn’t going to go away. If Romney decides to run you can count on this incident coming back up. And if it turns out that your man was involved (and from what I know but can’t say, I’d put money on it) I’m sure you’ll have no problem with “pure spin” in downplaying it.

***They are often the fodder of political “gotcha” That is how the game is played.***

Oh please. Romney isn’t just your typical lying politician—he’s in his own category. We’re not talking about a politician who merely forgets promises he’s made in the past. We’re talking about a man who has repeatedly proven that he will say whatever the voters want to get elected. If they want a liberal, he’ll be a liberal. If they want a conservative, he’ll be a conservative. He will literally take opposite positions on the same issue and then when you point out his inconsistencies and lies, he’ll look you straight in the eye and pretend you’re stupid enough to think there isn’t a contradiction. The man is shameless.

This is not personal, at least not from our standpoint. I will point to just a couple of facts:

1. Romney did not say, ”My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.” He said he “saw” his father walk with the Rev. King. There’s a discussion of that here. You can draw all the conclusions you want about that mini-kerfluffle, but you need to get the facts right. (Personally, I saw John F. Kennedy do a lot of things – on television news reports. AmI lying when I say I saw him? Not at all. I also my own father go to work at a copper mine every day for years. Was I present and witnessing what he did at work? No, but I am not lying when I say I “saw” him do that. That attack on Romney’s credibility was one of the most overblown MSM stunts I have ever seen.)

2. When I said “I guess those are the kinds of reader Carter attracts,” I meant that plainly, but it was a throw-away line. I did not mean to imply that you seek to attract such commenters. The fact is, however, that your post did attract some readers who made comments about Beck’s Mormonism. It’s up to you whether to decry those comments or disavow the commenters.

3. I have never received a dime from Mitt Romney or anyone associated with him and have never worked for him. I do support Romney as a presidential candidate and have donated to his 2008 campaign and to his PACs.

While I’m disappointed in your comment, I don’t take it personally from you. Although we’ve had discussions on this blog, we’ve never met. John, on the other hand, is someone who I consider a friend. So to see him make such claims about me in order to defend a politician who has a history of disregarding the truth, is surprising and something I do take personally.

1. Romney did not say, ”My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.” He said he “saw” his father walk with the Rev. King. There’s a discussion of that here. You can draw all the conclusions you want about that mini-kerfluffle, but you need to get the facts right.

You link to a Boston Globe story which includes this quote:

Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: “My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.”

Yesterday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true.

Romney has told the same lie in different way, though, so I can understand how it might be possible to be confused on this point.

I meant that plainly, but it was a throw-away line. I did not mean to imply that you seek to attract such commenters.

Fair enough. Though I would have appreciated if throw-away lines I made three years ago hadn’t been used to condemn me.

It’s up to you whether to decry those comments or disavow the commenters.

If commenters made remarks about Beck’s faith that were slanderous or untrue, then I certainly disavow them. I will also say that no one should use Beck as a representative of the Mormon faith. I suspect that his knowledge of his own faith—like his knowledge of politics, history, etc.—is woefully lacking.

I do support Romney as a presidential candidate and have donated to his 2008 campaign and to his PACs.

I would be more understanding if you were on the payroll. I have been reading this blog for years and have been disturbed at what it has become. It’s constantly implied that any evangelical that doesn’t like Romney must secretly hate Mormons. It can’t be the fact that he’s a liberal and a habitual liar that convinces them that he’s unfit to be president. No, it’s that evangelicals all hate Mormons. The fact that Mormons refused to vote for Huckabee, however, was merely due to the fact that the Arkansas governor was a horrible person.

Now I’ve said for years that a voter has the right, even the responsibility, to consider how a candidate’s beliefs—including religious beliefs—will affect how they will govern. If they believe that the person’s religious views will be a detriment, then they are justified in refusing to support or vote for them. In Romney’s case, however, I don’t see why any evangelical would object. There is nothing in Mormon theology (that I know of) that would make a person a bad president. But even if there were, Romney has never shown the slightest inclination that he would let his faith influence how he governs (I consider that a mark against him, of course, but people who think religion is a “private affair” would view that as a positive).

I have to disagree with your characterization of anybody who watches Glenn Beck as a far right-wing type. I watch Glenn Beck every day, and listen to him somewhat less often since he’s not on the radio when it’s convenient for me to listen. He’s not a nutjob, nor does he condone nutjobs. I happen to agree with his stance on “social justice” in religion, and I am a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I believe that when our particular religion tries to even out the differences between rich and poor (e.g., church welfare), that it is not because everybody deserves to be as well off as the next person. I believe those programs are intended as a helping hand, not as a giveaway with nothing expected in return. We had to have church assistance for a very brief time some years ago. We were expected to be full tithepayers, with temple recommends (if possible), and active in the church. We didn’t just walk into the bishop’s office and get a handout. That’s the difference, and that’s what I believe you’ll find if you investigate Beck’s words further. There’s a vast difference between what the LDS Church provides and the “social justice” in, say, Reverend Wright’s church.

Mr. Carter’s statement that Mitt Romney “may be sincere about his faith” while attacking his integrity generally is not much of a concession. One must ask, though, since being Mormon is such a major handicap for Romney, and if his driving ambition is to be popular nationally, the ONLY reason for him to hold fast to his membership in the LDS Church is a sincere religious conviction. If Mr. Carter has any evidence to back up his skepticism about Romney’s religious sincerity, he should put it out there.

Since Mr. Carter is reading this post, perhaps he might look into Romney’s religious service as a bishop leading an LDS congregation and then a stake president leading the group of congregations in the Boston area. Those are uncompensated positions that required 20 or more hours of work each week (at the time he was building up his own investment business, when most businessmen would be putting all their time into ensuring the success of their company), and he served in those positions for several years. Obviously, his superiors in the LDS Church had a high opinion of Romney’s religious convictions and integrity, trusting him to select subordinate leaders, administer church funds, and advise church members on religious, marital and other personal issues.

Romney’s reputation for integrity in the business world was such that he was sought for to restore confidence in the 2002 Winter Olympics, which had been marred when the scandal of bribery of Olympic officials in the selection of Salt Lake, Nagano, and previous venues was revealed. When the 9/11 terror attacks happened just 5 months before the games were to be held, as the first major international event in the US after the attacks, an event that itself had a history of being a target of Muslim terrorists, Romney was successful in bringing off the sports events safely. He also made the games a financial success that provided an endowment that funds the continued public use of the venues constructed for the games. Personally, I doubt that either Mike Huckabee or Barack Obama have the leadership ability and the entrepreneurial acumen to have done that. Literally tens of thousands of people in Utah served as volunteers in the 2002 Olympics, and are familiar with Romney’s leadership and integrity. The people most familiar with Romney’s work, and their families, gave him a strong endorsement in the primaries.

The kerfuffle over whether George Romney actually walked down a street with Martin Luther King is a red herring to distract from the very real steps Mitt’s father took to use his political office to actively support racial equality. The Wikipedia article about George Romney says quite a bit about his pioneering efforts to bring about racial equality in jobs and housing, both during his service as Michigan governor and his tenure as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, during an era when it was still a political liability to be a strong advocate of racial equality. Some salient excerpts:

Romney supported the American Civil Rights Movement while governor.[99] His hardscrabble background and subsequent life experiences had given him a different perspective from the LDS Church policy on blacks;[15] he reflected, “It was only after I got to Detroit that I got to know Negroes and began to be able to evaluate them and I began to recognize that some Negroes are better and more capable than lots of whites.”[80] During his first State of the State address in January 1963, Romney declared that “Michigan’s most urgent human rights problem is racial discrimination—in housing, public accommodations, education, administration of justice, and employment.”[100] Romney helped create the state’s first civil rights commission.[101] When Martin Luther King, Jr. came to Detroit in June 1963 to stage a civil rights march, Romney issued a proclamation in support of the event and sent two representatives to it on his behalf, but did not attend himself because it was on a Sunday.[99] Romney did participate in a smaller march protesting housing discrimination the following Saturday in Grosse Pointe, after King had left.[99]

At the [1964 Republican] convention, Romney fought for a strengthened civil rights plank in the party platform that would pledge action to eliminate discrimination at the state, local, and private levels, but it was defeated on a voice vote.[109][110]

Governor Romney continued his support of civil rights; after violence broke out during the Selma to Montgomery marches in 1965, he marched at the front of a Detroit parade in solidarity with the marchers.[101] In 1966, Romney had his biggest electoral success, winning re-election again by some 527,000 votes over Democratic lawyer Zolton Ferency[80][118] (this time to a four-year term, Michigan having changed its law).[102] His share of the black vote rose to over 30 percent, a virtually unprecedented accomplishment for a Republican.[80]

[B]y the end of Romney’s governorship the state had made strong gains in civil rights related to public employment, government contracting, and access to public accommodations.[127] Lesser improvements were made in combating discrimination in private employment, housing, education, and law enforcement.[127]

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 mandated a federal commitment towards housing desegregation, and required HUD to orient its programs in this direction.[165] Romney, filled with moral passion, wanted to address the widening economic and geographic gulf between whites and blacks by moving blacks out of inner city ghettos and into suburbs.[166] Romney proposed an open housing scheme to facilitate desegregation, dubbed “Open Communities”; HUD planned it for many months without keeping Nixon informed.[167][168]

Once made public, local reaction was often hostile.[165] This included Warren, Michigan, a blue-collar suburb of Detroit where many blacks worked but could not live due to the zoning practices, refusals, and intimidatory actions of white property owners, many of whom had come there from the city as part of white flight.[169][170] HUD made Warren a prime target for Open Communities enforcement and threatened to halt all federal assistance to the town unless it took a series of actions to end racial discrimination there; town officials said progress was being made and that their citizens resented forced integration.[169] Romney rejected this response, partly because when he was governor, Warren residents had thrown rocks and garbage and yelled obscenities for days at a biracial couple who moved into town.[170] Now the secretary said, “The youth of this nation, the minorities of this nation, the discriminated of this nation are not going to wait for ‘nature to take its course.’ What is really at issue here is responsibility – moral responsibility.”[169]
Romney visited Warren in July 1970, and emphasized that affirmative action rather than forced integration was all that HUD was demanding, but the local populace was not satisfied and Romney was jeered as a police escort took him away from the meeting place.[170] Nixon saw what happened in Warren[169] and had no interest in the Open Communities policy in general, remarking to domestic adviser John Ehrlichman that, “This country is not ready at this time for either forcibly integrated housing or forcibly integrated education.”[165] Open Communities also conflicted with Nixon’s use of the Southern strategy and his own views on race.[171]

Despite all the setbacks and frustrations, University at Buffalo political scientist Charles M. Lamb concluded that Romney pressed harder to achieve suburban integration than any prominent federal official from the 1970s through the 1990s.[191] Lehman College sociology professor Christopher Bonastia sees the Romney-era HUD as having come “surprisingly close to implementing unpopular antidiscrimination policies” but in the end was unable to bring about meaningful alterations in American segregation patterns, with no equivalent effort having happened since then or likely to in the foreseeable future.[177]

pjn0524, I may have allowed my discomfort with Glenn Beck to push me to an overbroad statement. I’ll just say that the way things are said matters, and in that regard alone Mr. Beck is not my cup of tea, er, Postum.

Joe, we are going to have to agree to disagree. Your attacks on Romney’s character are beyond strident and really seem to be beneath you. I hope I have not attacked Mike Huckabee that way; I will avoid doing so in the future. By the way, I think coltakashi has made some interesting responses to your ad hominem attacks on Romney.

Sorry you find this personal – I don’t. You seconded Belz. We have pointed that out on this blog numerous times since you did so and today is the first time you have reacted at all, let alone retracted. That’s not personal Joe, that’s what you wrote and published, and given your level of influence in the Evangelical community, it needed to be addressed. All I did was point out the inconsistency in your writings and ask you to resolve it.

Yes, I support Romney, but nothing in my statements in this post about your statements defend Romney per se – they address the issue of religious discrimination. You can rest assured that had Meridian Magazine published a piece declaring Evangelicals are liars becasue of their lack of ecclesiastical structure – I’d have been all over that too. And if a Mormon blogger had seconded it – I’d go there as well.

You have now repudiated the Belz piece which is all that I have asked. As far as I am concerned, the issue is closed save as it remains a historical fact and whatever influence it may or may not have had in the last electoral cycle cannot be undone.

Wow! Looks I really missed out on the donnybrook yesterday. It appears you folks hit a little too close to the mark for Mr. Carter’s sensibilities. Since this topic has already been pretty well run through the mill, I will just add this. There is actually a simple metric for determining the nature of an individual’s intent when distrust of Romney is voiced.

If that individual voices the same distrust of Huckabee, then it is likely that their concern is unrelated to religion. (Or at least Romney’s in particular) However, if the individual questioning Romney’s veracity gives Huckabee a pass on that issue, the likelihood that their problem is actually his religious beliefs increases exponentially.

coltakashiIf Mr. Carter has any evidence to back up his skepticism about Romney’s religious sincerity, he should put it out there.

I think you’re reading too much into my comment. I’m not skeptical, so much as unfamiliar with the depth of his religious convinctions. As with most people, I take him at his word when he says he is sincere about his faith. But I can’t make declarative statements (i.e., “Romney is a sincere Mormon) about matters that I am not familiar with.

Personally, I doubt that either Mike Huckabee or Barack Obama have the leadership ability and the entrepreneurial acumen to have done that.

I think running a state for 13 years is a more impressive achievement. In fact, I’m more impressed with Romney’s brief tenure as a governor than I am with his role in the taxpayer-funded sinkhole that was the Winter Olympics.

The kerfuffle over whether George Romney actually walked down a street with Martin Luther King is a red herring to distract from the very real steps Mitt’s father took to use his political office to actively support racial equality.

If the issue was about George Romney, that would be true. But no one is talking about George Romney’s civil rights record. We are talking about Mitt Romney’s propensity to exagerrate and tell outright lies when he thinks it will make him look good. So your red herring charge is itself a red herring.

LowellYour attacks on Romney’s character are beyond strident and really seem to be beneath you.

I am not normally the kind of guy that gets so heated about politicians. But this is a unique situation. My stridencey is a direct result of having to deal with the Romney campaign during the last Republican primary. The Romney team was one of the slimiest political staffs that I—or more experienced people—had ever seen. They made the Clinton’s look sweet in comparison.

Ever wonder why every other candidate despised Mitt when he was on the campaign trail? It was because he and his team were some of the dirtiest, most dishonest people any of us had ever seen. (If you think I’m harsh, you should see what the McCain people think of him.)

Part of my animus is due to the frustration I felt during the campaign. Gov. Huckabee issued an edict to the staff that we were not to publicly speak ill of Romney and would not respond directly to his lies and attacks. (Huckabee himself often had trouble holding his tongue, but he made sure we did.) Romney’s follks knew this and took full advantage of it. Because of their behavior—and his as their leader—I have absolutely no respect for him or his people. (This is definitely one of those times when I wish I hadn’t signed a nondisclosure agreement saying that I could not give details about what happened during the campaign.)

I hope I have not attacked Mike Huckabee that way; I will avoid doing so in the future.

This isn’t a Huckabee/Romney issue. If Huckabee had acted as despicablly as Romney had then you would be warranted in such criticism.

I think you and many of his other supporters mean well, but I suspect if he were to become president you’d be just as disillusioned as many Obama supporters. Romeny simply isn’t the man you think he is.

TVHallHowever, if the individual questioning Romney’s veracity gives Huckabee a pass on that issue, the likelihood that their problem is actually his religious beliefs increases exponentially.

For this to be true, we have to assume that Huckabee is on record as lying as often as Romney is. If that is the case, I’d be interested in seeing it.

Let me add two last words on the religious angle. If you want Romney to suceed then you have to stop playing the religious card. It didn’t help for evangelicals to whine that people refused to support Huckabee because he was an evangelical or Democrats to complain that people were supporting Obama because he was black. It’s not helping Mitt either. (On that point, I don’t mind so much. But it also hurts his supporters, many of who I like.)

When every person who criticizes your candidate has to first prove that they are not hostile to Mormons, then you’ve lost. No one will take you seriously—even when there are real concerns about religious bias.

Second, it’s ironic that people assume that I have a bias against his faith when the truth is that Romney’s Mormonism is about the only thing I like about the guy. The Mormons I know personally are some of the most upright, decent, and honest people I know. They are extremely civic-minded and other-directed. Romney is dishonest and will do almost anything to get elected, but I suspect he’d be much worse if his faith didn’t prevent him from falling completley over the edge. (I suspect that if Romney wasn’t LDS he’d be a mix of John Kerry and Bill Clinton.)

I would like to thank Mr. Carter for his retraction of Joel Belz’ piece. I have read Mr. Belz’ piece and found it such an irresponsible piece of journalism–if the term journalism should be applied here–that it should not have been printed, let alone linked to and discussed.

For the record, I have informed all my family and friends that should Mr. Huckabee win the Presidential nomination in 2012 to run against Barack Obama, I will be forming or joining a “Mormons for Huckabee” group and will do all in my power to support others to vote for said Mr. Huckabee. Those are the only conditions that I can imagine in which I will by voting for MH.

I find Mr. Carter’s comment that Mormons won’t vote for MH disingenuous. I was inclined toward MH and made the effort to look at some of his positions and his record as governor. I will admit that I was not particularly happy with what I found out. After watching MH’s lack of graciousness, his little floating cross ads, and his comments about Mormon beliefs, I was actually offended.

The fact that MH said things about Mormons as a Baptist preacher would not necessarily have prevented me from voting for him; indeed, it goes with the job description, doesn’t it? However, as a sitting governor MH chose to be the keynote speaker at a Baptist conference in Salt Lake City. This shows a lack of judgment that is inexcusable. A person in an important elected office really should not be involved in this type of activity.

I reject the idea that MH is a victim of any kind. He has continued to act in an ungracious manner, which is very unimpressive to me. Politics is a blood sport, one in which MH gave as good as he got. I don’t care how he feels, it’s how he continues to act and what he says that is so unimpressive.

By the way, while I simply will not trouble to list every inconsistency that MH had on the campaign trail, I would like to point out that MH claimed to have a degree, which he does not have. He also changed his position dramatically on the border in the space of a few weeks. I live in a border state and care about that issue. I saw a dramatic flip-flop from Mr. Huckabee. No, MH is not a victim.

I attended Mitt Romney’s book signing recently. I was overwhelmed by his graciousness as he personally thanked each one of us for buying his book. I also sense that when one meets him personally, he is not a man to be easily ignored. It simply isn’t possible.

Mr. Carter, I see that so much of what has been written has been taken personally by you. I don’t think that anyone on this thread so far has intended that to be the case, including me. I don’t know why you are so very sensitive about this issue, but I am concerned that your burden on this matter is heavy or everything wouldn’t be so personal. There is Someone who reminds us to Come unto me all ye that are heavy laden and I will give you rest. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. I urge you to let it go.

First, I want to post soemthing I posten another website and then I want to make a second comment about Joe carters irrational, childish behavior. Reminds me of Mike Huckabee, by the way.

The most underreported story in Presidential politics is Mike Huckabees skilful use of anti Mormon tactics. For those who doubt the extent of it, I will point a few things out, since it is not reported, as it would have been, if it was a Catholic or a Jew, that Huckabee did this to. The snubbing of an entire religion, that it was, which I say as more factual, than being emotional. I simply desire to make a political point.

The official website for Mike Huckabee when running for president, was filled with anti Mormon rhetoric. I use to get on that website and the hatred towards Mormons was well documented, by a site which is now called “committedtoromney.com”. I will not get into detaials and others are free to come forth, with information, to prove the point.

Most of the people spreading the strong anti LDS feelings were only people who made comments, or at least they made it appear that way. However, there is one person, who’s shocking consistent comments about Mormons and the lies and hate that was coming forth, might surprise a few. No other than Sarah Huckabee herself, would dialogue back and forth about the Mormon religion and it was some of the worst I have ever seen.

Now, this went on for at least a few months, leading up to the Iowa primaries, maybe longer. I was not aware of it the site before then. How could Mr. responsible Mike Huckabee not even know what was going on in his website for so long and being not only allowed by his own daughter, but even her fueling the flames? It was clearly not coincidence and they were either hoping for such comments, or some running the website were secretly posting the comments.

Sarah Huckabee however, she made no secret about her feelings about Mormons. I can’t remember exactly, but she may have tried to back track on some things and softened her tone, leaving it up to her fellow Evangelicals, all serious about the cause of stopping a Mormon President, but one thing is for sure, she was known, with others, to make comments and questions similar to the one her Dad made.

Mike Huckabees apology to Mitt Romney was nothing more than a spit in the face. Even though he comes across as harmless, the kind of guy you could win in a wrestling match easily, I submit, he is far from an innocent or truly noble and a loving man. I guess it depends on what your exact definition of good is. I believe Huck is another one of those frauds, who tries so hard to make people think he something he is not. His apology was not sincere. It was nothing more than a political stunt, as the one he pulled in Iowa, when he decided to do the right thing at the right time and at the very last minute and not run that add against Romney, even though he leaked it to the media and it was full of dishonesty.

So Mormons and people who defend all faiths, Catholic, Jewish, Evangelical or whatever the faith, should not believe for a minute, that Huckabee likes the Mormon religion or his apology was sincere. This is man who knows many of the basic Mormon doctrines better than some Mormons, especially knew memebers. He knew exactly what he was doing when he asked the New York Times reporter if Mormons believe Satan and Jesus are or were brothers. In my opinion, this a threat to the very ideals and founding principles of our nation and to people of all faiths, for someone to be throwing this religious test, against a man, who loves America and a group of people “LDS” who also are love America.

The reason Mike Huckabee shows such a disdain for the first credible and electable Mormon is part of a strategy. Romney in some respects is a symbol. He is a Mormon and attacking that symbol rallies those who are either skeptical or just hate or dislike Mormons or those who simply prefer an Evangelical over a Mormon and believe me, this is bigger than people think. One more point. It also fuels skepticism among those who would vote for Romney and like him personally. Huckabee knows what he is doing.

There was a study by a major University. I think in Cali. You can look it up or maybe I will later, but the study found that the flip flop thing sticks to Romney, because of his religion and that people used that as an excuse, when in fact they did not want a Mormon President. It even found that people who had no problem with Mormons or even liked Mormons, were influenced by the flip flop charge, because of the media obsessively playing it around the clock, BEING THAT THEY KNEW, IT WAS WORKING. Heck, there were a few times when I caught the bug and said “Romney, what the hell did you do this time, can’t you be more careful with your words?”. Most of it exaggerations and lies. Negative energy is very powerful and can sway the strongest amongst us.

I lived in South Carolina. I went door to door selling Pest Control and I talked to hundreds and hundreds of people and Huckabee’s strategy worked very well. They did not know I was Mormon, but I would play it like I was just a regular Joe, from New York, being that I just moved from there, wanting to talk about politics. This was in the summer and fall of 2007. Many mentioned Huckabee by name and that he was there guy, because he will stop the Mormon. Basically, believe it or not, it was that blunt sometimes and sometimes not so blunt, but I could see through those who had a problem with the religion and almost everyone was voting for Huckabee, who used the skepticism against the LDS religion, to catapult him to the position he is now in and his win Iowa. I was surprised to see how normal these people were.

Many were likable and not seeming like they would be bigots. Looked responsible, like they had big jobs and some did, some tried to hide there bigotry, not sure of me. Many however, I could smell the bigotry when Romney’s name came up.

I want to dispute fellow Mormons who want to be peacemakers and want to believe what they perceive or think as the best about fellow Mormons and exactly what fellow Mormons would do in the future. First, I agree that many Mormons would vote for Huckabee. I am not so foolish to act like I know the exact percentage. I am smart enough and have talked to enough Mormons to know, he for surely would not get all Mormons who normally vote Republican, to vote for him. Actually, I think he would lose 40 to 65 percent for sure and I am very certain, especially if this whole drama of Mormons not being allowed, is on display again, enough of them would stay home, that Utah and even more certain, states that surround Utah would go blue.

A University in Utah did a poll and Mormons very much dislike how Huckabee used their sacred beliefs in the campaign and some are more aware than others, as to the extent he used it, including leaders at the highest levels of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. They are not dumb men and a few have made subtle remarks, such as Elder’s Packer and Ballard and probably others.

So Mormons who discount other Mormons feelings about Huckabee and say it is all emotional and I guess some is, let me explain. With me and many others, it is a well thought out and principled position we take, to chose not to vote for somebody who is so obsessed with our religion and Romney and clearly, does not want a Mormon President, which I will explain some of the reasons why. Matter of fact, Huck was one of many Evangelcals who did not even want Romney as VP. Every single person pushing for this was a Huckabee supporter, one was actually a former Romney supporter, who has pathetically offered his repentance to Evangelical leaders.

Before I go any further, I want to make the point that I do not hate Huckabee, like I do not hate President Clinton or many other people I consider as less than praiseworthy. The argument could be made that Huckabee is a better man than Clinton, but then again, as a Mormon, Clinton does not have the kind of disdain and opposition to my sacred religious beliefs, as does Mike Huckabee, who attended a Sothern Baptist Convention in Salt Lake City, in the late 90’s. May I add the underlying purpose of the convention was to smear Mormons in their own back yard, much of what was said was true stuff, being taken out of context and some was just the typical lies we Mormons have heard all to often. Oh, by the way, Huckabee was the keynote speaker.

I’m not so sure this is about the past, as some would suggest. If this did not have very likely future implications, I would let it go. I am not insecure in my faith, myself or Romney and actually am more confident than I will ever explain, when it comes to Romney.

If Romney loses the nomination a second time and anti Mormon bigotry is perceived as the number one reason or the main cause and Mike Huckabee won the nomination, which he will not and I am only making a point, I will say with certainty, Mormons will feel even stronger than last time and no, I do not speak for all Mormons, but anyone who doubts this, does not know what they are talking about. Mike Huckabee will lose enough of the Mormon vote, to make sure many states go blue, without a doubt.

It’s not the Mormons playing the religion card and doing the bigotry. Utah is where Bush, an Evangelical, is the most poplular, but I do not think LDS will allow it again and no, I am not saying there is not other reasons people would vote against Romney, but anyone with a brain and who is honest, will understand it is his biggest obstacle.

There is a lot I am leaving out and will leave that to people to comment on. Probably a topic people do not want to face. I just want to say, there is nothing more I would want than to heal the rift between some Evangelicals and their feelings against Mormons. I understand that for the sake of 2012, we need to unite, but I think this is a proper forum about political ramifications and it is the right time to address this. We have a lot of time before the primaries and the general election and an awfully lot is going to happen. So let’s hope there is some respect and some civility in the coming days and that Mormons will be recognized as a jewel to the Republican Party and that there is forgiveness and friendship between Huck and Romney. Let’s wait and see, if Huckabee will invite Romney on his show and put the past behind and let go of these negative feelings, we all know he has.

I will vote for many evangelicals, except Huckabee. Palin, Bush, Pawlenty, Perry I think is one, he talks like one, and many others I will vote for, but I cannot vote for someone who is against who I am to the very core. That I cannot do and would rather leave things in God’s hands at that point and I have a lot of faith that the lord has all nations in his hands, even though it does not always seem that way. Point is, I have very rational and principled thoughts, on why I will not vote for Huckabee, deeper than can be explained.

Sometimes, nations, like individuals, need trials and I believe the Obama Presidency is already one of the greatest blessings in disguise this nation has had in a while. If Obama care passes, it will set this nation off and it will be repealed and if it don’t pass, his failure and lack of focus on jobs is going to wake people up, along with how extreme he is coming across. States rights is going to be a growing sentiment, on an encroaching Federal Government

I do not say this as someone who has any kind of worry, Huck will win and Romney will lose. Carma or whatever you want to call it, seems like it is against Huckabee and for so many reasons, I believe things are working out like clock work for Romney and providence is behind it, as it was with George Washington and James Madison and the founding of this country. So no, Huckabee does not worry me in the slightest. I simply am making some points. I am very positive and very excited about the future and what I believe it holds. I believe it is Romney’s destiny to be the next President. I just think Huckabee should not be allowed to get away with this and that his supporters should realize, many Mormons think Huck believes they do not belong

I would like to address these dishonest claims about Romney, being a very dishonest man. First, is’nt it ironic, that these self righteous, holier than thou fanatics and conspiracy theorist, try to put something on Romney that is not even true, but that in the same breathe, of proclaiming Romney a liar, they exaggerate, on a level that certainly would be considered dishonest and then on top of exaggerating, they clearly make up outright lies?

I think Lowell disputes this ridiculous dishonesty of some trying to pin something on Romney that clearly is not there. By the way Joe, is this all you have? I mean it sounds so stupid and ridiculous. Also, I want to address the fact that you have a motive that is very powerful and you will do anything, to tear Romney down, but here’s Lowells words.

“Romney did not say, ”My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.” He said he “saw” his father walk with the Rev. King. There’s a discussion of that here. You can draw all the conclusions you want about that mini-kerfluffle, but you need to get the facts right. (Personally, I saw John F. Kennedy do a lot of things – on television news reports. Am I lying when I say I saw him? Not at all. I also my own father go to work at a copper mine every day for years. Was I present and witnessing what he did at work? No, but I am not lying when I say I “saw” him do that. That attack on Romney’s credibility was one of the most overblown MSM stunts I have ever seen.)”

So your disputed on that one. If you try to argue that, you’ll make yourself look even more mad and irrational than you are. I have no problem with people being a little emotional or even emotional, I surely can be sometimes and I am working on it, but you seem like a mad possessed man and a very dishonest one.

What dishonesty are you talking about, that is so clear cut and not the usual talking points? Oh, you mean when he was a Mormon in Massachusetts, on another planet, full of liberals and Catholics, when he said he will respect there culture and there laws and thereby protecting the right of a women to choose an abortion? Your right it, it was not the right time for Romney to elaborate on the whole and yes he did mess up, but more on how explained a few times.Tell me, what is wrong with that???????????????? There was no way around it and it is not dishonest. He never said he was pro choice and he never was. Ya, Romney is not perfect and could have explained himself better and chpose not to use some words, but give the guy a break for crying out loud. He’s the only one who has been honest about his change and and few adjustments, which were not political at all.

If he is so political than why did he take a bigger step than any state had ever took at that time and get everybody health care. Surely, he knew that had potential be a problem with conservatives. He did not have to do that and care about the lives of Americans Joe.

So what other lies are you talking about? The man was not welcome from the start, because of his religion and he tried to fit in and I think he said some things that did not come across well, but that does not mean, he’s like many politicians and lies like crazy. He said some things about guns, but he did not lie. He pandered a little, like Pawlenty is now and got more attacked because he was Mormon. He said he had been a hunter and hunted small things, like rabbits. He was never for gay marriage. Yes, there are some issues, that even though he did not have a huge change of position on, he like everyone else out there, made some adjustments, as he got more information.

Even if Romney did give very clear cut lies a few times and I do not believe he did, how is that any different than others. Mike Huckabee has been one the most dishonest politicians we have seen in a long time. After all, he is from Hope Arkansas, changing his position on Immigration, lying about Maurice Clemmens and his clemmencies and lying about his role in the using of another mans religion against him and many other things.

Romney loves this country and yes he is not perfect, but I think the man has grown greatly. Even his public speaking has got better. By the way, a former supporter of Hucks, has come out and said he is being dishonest about these clemmencies and we are not talking about little smudgings and leaving some things out. He has lied. There is no way, with how many people he gave clemmencies to, that he read all there files, including prison files, which Clemmens was as bad as it gets. Sexual assault, attacking a prison guard ECT ECt and then not to mention all his lies during the campaign, about all things Romney.

Joe, maybe if you did not seem like a possessed mad man, who hated Romney, for no reason, unless you really are tricking yourself and believing the lies about Romney or maybe you want to believe them, but if you were more rational and not so extreme you could make your case. I mean come one, you try to bring the he saw his back in the days, do a lot of things, such as march with in civil rights movements and with King. I do not believe Romney was lying. He was just trying to make a point. This shows how extreme and irrational you are.

You’ve been debunked, big time. In my opinion, it’s Romney’s religion you have the problem with, not Romney’s personal life or his honesty. There is no better man in politics and Huckabee is not even close to Romney in terms of character.

Joe Carter, waht are you talking about Beck does represent his religion good? What, because he is a ADD? He is emotional not perfect? I am dumb founded. I guess you would consider me the same, as not doing a good job, because I am not perfect.

Glenn has a very complicated personality and I’m sure he’s one of the Lords very unique and interesting children and sometimes, as the imperfect human being I am, he bothers me. He slams the Mass health Care plan, not being very informed. He was for Rudy in the primaries, who is pro choice and has a very sorry private life or did or however you want to put it. Now, he is for Palin, or at least trying to make it appear that way, so he does not get attacked.

I have seen becks testimony of Heavenly Father and the Savior. I have heard him talk about the Lord and answered prayers. I have heard him talk about his loving Heavenly Fathers hand in his life and even though he is ADD ( very hyper ) and sometimes a little off, I believe him to be one of the most authentically spiritually man I have known. Beck has a complete witness of the Lord and his love for Glenn and all people. This is no Mike Huckabee, who just likes sounding smart and neat and who is very trained at it. I have never heard any Evangelical Preacher, speak with such authority and sincerity.

How does having perfect Mormons everywhere do any good for Mormons. The people using the near perfection card have an agenda and there is something wrong with them. The imperfections of Beck, Romney, Harry Reid, David Archuleta ECT ECT are probably one of the best things about them, in terms of how people view Mormons. Don’t get me wrong, not to imperfect, like if we all looked like people in the 1800′s and were quiet and secluded or Pen Jollette or Gov Jessey Ventura and Keith Olberman, then I would be concerned.

Glenn Becks entire life is one of the great stories of Mormonism. He used to do all kinds of drugs and was an alcoholic. His life was worse than can be explained. Through a series of miracles, from a loving Heavenly Father, Beck has made it out of some of the darkest places one can go. He is happy. He is entertaining. He is upbeat. He will probably take over Bill Orielly and Limbuah and Hannity. He is young. He is comfortable to be around. Many people love him AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE WILL PROBABLY SEE HIM GROW MORE. He came out of nowhere, like a rocket. So even though Beck has bothered me on occasion, by and large is a very good representative of a Mormon. Everyone is imperfect.

Joe, Sorry my friend, but Huckabe’es loses and Romney wins, by a huge percentage. Huckabee is not enthusiastically like outside the Evangelical community. In other words, the key reason those who support him do, is because of the church he does or does not go. It mostly does not have anything to do with likability or competence. This is how he won Iowa and still got smoked by McCain, after Romney dropped out. Huckabee has Clemmens and karma to worry about and I can assure, the good Lord does not want Huckabee as President.